Heads-up to anyone in Juneau, and to anyone moving here soon...

[RayinAK]

Well, this is my last post on this subject. You haven't been able to provide not even one link from the State nor any other institution that proves that the State of Alaska is subsidizing GVEA, and that this in turn is lowering my electric and heating fuel costs.

GVEA: Northern Intertie (http://www.gvea.com/about/projectarchive/intertie/ - broken link)
The first link tells me that both the State of AK (Rail Belt Energy Fund), and GVEA spent 81 millions. Again, this is to the benefit of all Alaskans, since the Rail Belt is used not only for the distribution of electric power, but communications, cable, etc., all which is also used by the Federal Government, the University, State structures, offices, etc., as well as the private sector (including all the businesses around Alaska). The State and Federal governments get their money back in the form of taxes, and GVEA gets its money back by charging me more for electricity. If you don't believe me, look at your taxes in the phone and electric bills. This does not mean, however, that my electric are fuel costs are reduced in turn. My costs come down when the cost of producing electricity, and the cost of producing and selling fuel to me come down.

The second link: The Bradley Lake Project

Construction of the major facilities cost $312 million. Financing costs brought the total to $328 million, still $43 million below the original cost estimates. The state of Alaska funded $175 million directly and the five participants financed the balance through bonds.

The state paid $175 million out of 312. Who do you think pays for the bonds, and why? Even the State money is paid by revenues that come from the Federal Government, and by all Alaskans. The State is simply making it's life easier by making the distribution of services to its buildings, offices, etc. possible. It also benefits when it's making the same possible to the private sector, since these (businesses, consumers) pay back in the form of taxes. Again, this does not tell me how the State is subsidizing my neighbors and me and bringing our cost down. It's only telling me that the State paid for some of the cost, and that the rest (four participants) paid for the remainder. However, these four participants are cooperatives that use the revenue attained from their consumers (my neighbors and me) from the sale of utilities.

The third one: Healy Wind Study

In 1998, GVEA joined Alaska Wind & Solar (AKW&S) in a wind generation demonstration project in the Healy area. AKW&S received a $25,000 grant from the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) to purchase and install a wind turbine. GVEA has spent an additional $31,000 in equipment and services in support of the project.

Again, this is not saving me any money relating to electric and heating fuel costs. As a GVEA (cooperative) customer, it's only telling me that I have to pay for the lost incurred by GVEA by paying extra for electricity use. It was another experiment GVEA was supposed to take over once the study was completed, just like the Clean Coal Project that failed the test. And just like it, GVEA lost money by investing on some experiment that didn't work.

Fourth: Haystack/Hilltop Power Line Extension

In October 1996, GVEA's Board of Directors committed $631,000 to extend power to the Haystack and Hilltop areas on the Elliot Highway on the condition that the State appropriate $946,500 to cover the balance of the project costs.

This one explains how an area near Fairbanks that had no electric power available was granted such, thanks to their State (Alaska), and the GVEA's customers (my neighbors and me). It also shows that the State is the primary institution for the organization and funding of any projects that is to the benefit of its citizens. It's not up to GVEA (the private sector) to make that possible. It also shows that the State has a vested interest in the Area, and can't by itself have it's own power distribution and plants competing with the private sector, at least not in the area talked about. Again, the State and Federal governments get its money back in the form of taxes. It still does not tell me how that is bringing my cost down.

This is that last post from me on this subject.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

You haven't been able to provide not even one link from the State nor any other institution that proves that the State of Alaska is subsidizing GVEA, and that this in turn is lowering my electric and heating fuel costs.

I have shown you both specific State of Alaska and GVEA documents that clearly demonstrate that the State of Alaska has funded millions of dollars to help subsidize GVEA's services to its customers. Denial is ridiculous on its face when GVEA itself says they are subsidized!

Your rebuttals are illogical. You cite facts irrelevant to the question, and claim it has signficance. You also cite different ways of saying that there is a subsidy, and claim it is not a subsidy simply because a different word is used. Lets look at each of your claims...

Originally Posted by RayinAK

GVEA: Northern Intertie (http://www.gvea.com/about/projectarchive/intertie/ - broken link)
The first link tells me that both the State of AK (Rail Belt Energy Fund), and GVEA spent 81 millions.

It also tells you that the State of Alaska allocated $90 million for a project that subsidizes GVEA. Denying that is absurd. The State paid for it and GVEA says it saved GVEA members money. That is a subsidy.

Originally Posted by RayinAK

Again, this is to the benefit of all Alaskans, since the Rail Belt is used not only for the distribution of electric power, but communications, cable, etc., all which is also used by the Federal Government, the University, State structures, offices, etc., as well as the private sector (including all the businesses around Alaska).

No wonder you are confused about the Railbelt Energy Fund. You do not know what "Railbelt" means!

The Railbelt is the entire area served by the Alaska Railroad System. It includes everything from Eielson AFB on the Richardson Highway to Fairbanks, the entire Parks Highway from Fairbanks to Anchorage, all of Fairbanks and Anchorage, and all points served by the Alaska Railroad south of Anchorage.

If you had looked up the cited references and researched this topic rather than spouting off without any knowledge at all, you would know what "Railbelt" means (it is defined in the cited Alaska Statutues).

Originally Posted by RayinAK

The State and Federal governments get their money back in the form of taxes, and GVEA gets its money back by charging me more for electricity. If you don't believe me, look at your taxes in the phone and electric bills. This does not mean, however, that my electric are fuel costs are reduced in turn. My costs come down when the cost of producing electricity, and the cost of producing and selling fuel to me come down.

Your cost goes down every time the State or Federal Government provides any kind of funding to GVEA that allows GVEA to avoid a cost it would otherwise have to recover through the rate structure.

Less expensive construction of power generation facilities, expanding the customer base, and reduction in emergency backup generation potential are all ways in which the State of Alaska has subsidized GVEA. Claiming otherwise is ridiculously absurd.

Originally Posted by RayinAK

The second link: The Bradley Lake Project
The state paid $175 million out of 312. Who do you think pays for the bonds, and why?

So you admit that the State subsidized GVEA when it funded that project. And since GVEA's webpages specifically said it reduced their cost for electricity, what possible point can the rest of your trivia have in relation to the question at hand?

Originally Posted by RayinAK

Who do you think pays for the bonds, and why? Even the State money is paid by revenues that come from the Federal Government, and by all Alaskans. The State is simply making it's life easier by making the distribution of services to its buildings, offices, etc. possible. It also benefits when it's making the same possible to the private sector, since these (businesses, consumers) pay back in the form of taxes. Again, this does not tell me how the State is subsidizing my neighbors and me and bringing our cost down. It's only telling me that the State paid for some of the cost, and that the rest (four participants) paid for the remainder. However, these four participants are cooperatives that use the revenue attained from their consumers (my neighbors and me) from the sale of utilities.

None of that denies the fact that the State of Alaska subsidized GVEA.

Originally Posted by RayinAK

The third one: Healy Wind Study

Again, this is not saving me any money relating to electric and heating fuel costs.

An absurdly false statement. If GVEA had done the research without State funding, the rate payers would have had higher rates. GVEA has no choice but to do such research! There is no other way to determine whether altenate power generation is viable.

Originally Posted by RayinAK

As a GVEA (cooperative) customer, it's only telling me that I have to pay for the lost incurred by GVEA by paying extra for electricity use. It was another experiment GVEA was supposed to take over once the study was completed, just like the Clean Coal Project that failed the test. And just like it, GVEA lost money by investing on some experiment that didn't work.

That is an incorrect analysis. GVEA must do research. When the State pays for the research, that is a subsidy to GVEA. The alternative would be for GVEA to select the theoretically least expensive generation infrastructure for major construction projects. The cost, either for mistakes or for the extreme convservativism required to avoid mistakes, would be enourmous. Instead the State of Alaska takes a major part of the risk, and the rate payer is subsidized.

Originally Posted by RayinAK

Fourth: Haystack/Hilltop Power Line Extension

This one explains how an area near Fairbanks that had no electric power available was granted such, thanks to their State (Alaska), and the GVEA's customers (my neighbors and me).

It was a direct subsidy to GVEA that reduced GVEA's charges to their customers.

The rest of your trivia is interesting, but does not change the fact that the State subsidized GVEA.

Originally Posted by RayinAK

It also shows that the State is the primary institution for the organization and funding of any projects that is to the benefit of its citizens. It's not up to GVEA (the private sector) to make that possible. It also shows that the State has a vested interest in the Area, and can't by itself have it's own power distribution and plants competing with the private sector, at least not in the area talked about. Again, the State and Federal governments get its money back in the form of taxes. It still does not tell me how that is bringing my cost down.

This is that last post from me on this subject.

You have not shown any lack of subsidies to GVEA though!


The bottom line is that the Legislature made it very clear that they intended to subsidize GVEA, and all other electric utilities within the Railbelt, and GVEA on its web page specifically says so too:

"GVEA members began saving money immediately as a result of
reduced line loss."

Now, you can deny all you like that GVEA has received subsidies, but doing so is much like what you had to say about the "uses" of the "Rail Belt": it's all nonsense.

[bhoward11]

Maybe you should move down here with us, sounds like you'd fit right in.

[InfectedMushroom]

LOL